GNLCC Science Plan, 2014-2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The GNLCC Science Plan builds off the Governance Charter and Strategic Conservation Framework (Chambers et al. 2013). The Science Plan explains and instructs how to apply the Conservation Framework and achieve landscape goals through an adaptive management approach by describing:

● ecological relationships among conservation targets, threats, and actions as they relate to overall goals and vision

● a process for setting desired conditions and quantifiable objectives for conservation targets● how to assess conservation actions for effectiveness towards goals (conservation triage; Bottrill 2008),

and● data gaps and needed science for understanding and achieving the above; data gaps will be used to

guide science acquisition by informing annual work plans

The Plan outlines stepwise processes for addressing conservation targets and coarse to fine scales defining high-level science needs and appropriate avenues for partners to identify desired condition, population and habitat objectives, effective conservation actions, and suitable metrics to measure goal attainment.

The Plan identifies initial products needed in FY2014 (Key point for Annual Workplan):

Partner Forums initiate the Stepwise Process for 1 (+) priority species, habitat or ecosystem, and ecosystem process

GNLCC staff and Advisory Team develop initial Landscape Integrity Index and the technical resources to ensure index is reliable, transparent, and repeatable.Acknowledgements

J. Morisette, C. McCreedy, M. Cross, M. Manning, N. DeCrappeo, G. Chong, V. Kelly, J. Pierce provided valuable guidance and comments on this draft.

1

GNLCC Science Plan, 2014-2018

INTRODUCTION

About the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative

The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) is an applied conservation science partnership that convenes science expertise and provides technical support to inform resource management with respect to landscape stressors for landscape conservation. As a partnership of land managers, scientists and other conservation practitioners, the GNLCC provides the landscape context to support conservation planning, implementation, and evaluation towards a collective landscape vision through an adaptive management framework (Holling 1978).

The Purpose of this GNLCC Science Plan

The purpose of this document is to build upon the GNLCC Strategic Conservation Framework (Conservation Framework; Chambers et al 2013) and apply science standards and tools to support implementation of the Conservation Framework by GNLCC partners. The Science Plan explains and instructs how to apply the Conservation Framework and achieve landscape goals through an adaptive management approach by describing:

● ecological relationships among conservation targets, threats, and actions as they relate to overall goals and vision

● a process for setting desired conditions and quantifiable objectives for conservation targets● how to assess conservation actions for effectiveness towards goals (conservation triage; Bottrill 2008),

and● data gaps and needed science for understanding and achieving the above; data gaps will be used to

guide science acquisition by informing annual work plans

The Conservation Framework describes a collective landscape vision, an over-arching landscape goal, 4 subgoals and 29 conservation targets used to measure progress toward goal achievement. The Science Plan describes how GNLCC intends to synthesize ecological science and conservation practice across spatial and ecological scales – from fine grained, species-specific conservation targets through coarse quantifications of landscape integrity – to derive repeatable measures of conservation outcome effectiveness, thereby enabling the measurement toward goal attainment.

In Section 1, we use four conservation targets as example proofs-of-concept to illustrate a stepwise, iterative process for setting quantifiable objectives, implementing conservation action, and measuring progress toward goals. The examples describe ecological relationships and socio-economic factors influencing those targets and how they translate to the stated goals. Throughout the iterative process critical data, science, tools and information necessary for effective planning, implementation, and measuring (monitoring) of conservation actions by managers and other practitioners is highlighted. The examples describe how conservation targets are used to measure progress toward landscape goals. Section 2 addresses Landscape Integrity more directly. Although resource managers don’t, as a matter of practice, implement conservation action at such coarse scales, there is value in tracking coarse grained changes to the landscape that result from consumptive land use, climate impacts and other conditions such as invasive species spread (Beever et al. in press). Section 2 describes

2

a geospatial approach to tracking landscape change that informs LCC partners on trends in processes and conditions such as connectivity and ecosystem health. Finally, Section 3 describes how these multi-scale approaches will be collectively used to track our collective progress toward stated goals and desired condition while identifying critical gaps in scientific information to inform and guide GNLCC annual work plans and funding.

Through this process, the GNLCC provides landscape scale context to the broader conservation community, their missions and mandates; enables partners to understand how they can affect and derive a landscape benefit through the GNLCC partnership; and guides our investment in accordance with the direction stated by the Steering Committee in the GNLCC Governance Charter and Strategic Conservation Framework.

Roles within the GNLCC Partnership

The roles of the various GNLCC partner groups are detailed below according to each step in the science process. By way of introduction, generally:

The Steering Committee sets big-picture guidance for the GNLCC and approves direction. The Advisory Team coordinates science needs, refines identified priorities, and leads the process of

defining metrics for success for the GNLCC. Partner Forums consist of on-the-ground practitioners who have a major role in the GNLCC. Based on

their local expertise, they identify fine-scale conservation priorities; link metrics describing conservation targets to the GNLCC landscapes; identify the extent and intensity of threats to those targets; ground-truth conceptual models; plan and deliver corresponding conservation action; and share lessons learned.

The Science Community shares knowledge, expertise, and tools for practitioners; helps advance conceptual models; and provides analysis and synthesis.

Management Agencies are often part of partner forums, but as a group, they are important for delivery of conservation and resource management on the ground. They help ground-truth conceptual models for application to management decisions, their decisions directly lead to management actions, and they monitor and evaluate the success of their actions through adaptive management.

Inventory and Monitoring is conducted by many GNLCC partner organizations and in some cases is coordinated by inter-organizational work teams. The Science Plan describes a role for inventory and monitoring partners that includes improved planning, implementation, and data coordination.

A complex partnership like an LCC that transends geographical, jurisdictional and institutional boundaries, requires consistent levels of engagement by stakeholders who work to affect large landscape conservation employing a range of roles and strategies as per their missions and mandates. Because each partner’s capacity is different and limited, the Science Plan is intended to provide guidance on how these roles can strategically integrate through their work at different resource management and jurisdictional levels. Figure 2 provides a general depiction of this. Key messages in the framework are:

● All partners can be engaged at some level throughout the cycle (as indicated by rings)● Whom has the lead role changes throughout the cycle (as indicated by ring width)● Science Needs are identified throughout the cycle

3

Figure 2: Linking GNLCC Partners and their contributions to landscape conservation

Figure 3 represents the level of activity or engagement required by each functional role through the adaptive management wheel and is used in subsequent Figures to show shifting levels of responsibility. Thicker bars indicate where each group takes a leading role. This representation of functional roles will continue through this Science Plan describing the ‘who’ where it accompanies subsequent figures describing the ‘what’ of each step.

Figure 3: Example of a ‘timeline’ graphic depicting GNLCC Partners and their contributions to landscape conservation. This version useful when paired with elements of the Stepwise Process (Section IV, below)

GNLCC Conservation Vision, Goals & Targets

The GNLCC partnership envisions “a landscape that sustains its diverse natural systems to support healthy and connected populations of fish, wildlife, and plants; sustains traditional land uses and cultural history; and supports robust communities.” The GNLCC understands this vision is a stated desired future condition of high ecological integrity at a landscape scale for the Great Northern geography.

4

1. Maintain large, intact landscapes of naturally functioning terrestrial and aquatic community assemblages.

2. Conserve a permeable landscape with connectivity across aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including species movement, genetic connectivity, migration, dispersal, life history, and biophysical processes (recognizing this is species dependent, and recognizing in some circumstances connectivity is not desired).

3. Maintain hydrologic regimes that support native or desirable aquatic plant and animal communities in still and moving water systems.

4. Promote landscape-scale disturbance regimes that operate within a future range of variability and sustain ecological integrity.

The GNLCC addresses 29 species, habitats and ecosystems, and ecosystem processes as priority Conservation Targets (Chambers et al. 2013) Targets in bold faced font are example Conservation Targets for Proof of Concept (see page XX ).

Table 1: GNLCC Conservation Targets

Taxa Ecosystems/Habitats Ecosystem Processes whitebark pine riparian corridors aquatic connectivitysalmon rivers and riparian corridors connectivitysteelhead trout wetlands natural fire regimesbull trout alpine lakes insects and forest pathogenscutthroat trout watershed uplandstrumpeter swan pothole lakesgreater sage-grouse alpineburrowing owl sub-alpinepygmy rabbit woodlandpronghorn antelope sage shrub/grasslandsmule deergrizzly bearwolverineCanada lynx

Conservation Paradigms

To maintain consistency in process and outcome, this Plan adopts a standard conservation lexicon (Salafsky et al. 2008) which serves to structure and synthesize our cross-scale approach. The following definitions will be referenced throughout the Plan:

Conservation project – any set of actions to achieve defined conservation goals and objectives; described as a chain linking targets, direct threats, contributing factors, and conservation actions. (Syn. in Chambers et al. 2013 – Goal).Focal conservation target – species, community, ecosystem, or process. (syn. in Chambers et al. 2013 – Conservation Target).

5

Stress – attribute of a conservation target’s ecology; a degraded condition or “symptom.” (syn. in Chambers et al. 2013 – none).Direct Threat – the proximate human activity causing degradation of target. Threat may be historical, current, or likely to occur in future. (syn. in Chambers et al. 2013 – none).Contributing Factor – ultimate factors (usually social, economic, political, cultural) that enable direct threat; may be negative effect (commodity demand) or opportunity (planning goal). (syn. in Chambers et al. 2013 – Landscape Stressors and Impacts).Conservation Action – intervention designed to reach an objective or goal; can be applied to contributing factor, direct threat, or to conservation target. (syn. in Chambers et al. 2013 – *** )

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC; USFWS 2008, Figure 4) is a species population based adaptive management framework adopted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. SHC provides important structure to our Conservation Target-scale approach. Using SHC, we outline an iterative, adaptive process to achieve a resource outcome. That outcome can be used as a subset of resource targets to measure progress toward a stated desired condition or goal, in this case, the goal of high ecological integrity at a landscape scale as achieved through the four subgoals.

Figure 4. Strategic Habitat Conservation model (USFWS 2008).

SHC guidance provides basic questions that must be addressed in a science-based strategy. We modify those questions to guide the Science Plan as follows:

1. What is the trend in long-term average populations (or resources) and what direct threats and contributing factors are driving those trends? (Fig. 5, Steps 2b, 5)

2. What do we want to achieve (i.e., the desired condition) and how can we achieve it? (Fig. 5, Steps 4-7)2.1. What are our collective objectives and desired conditions for focal Conservation Target? (Fig. 5, Step

4)2.2. What factors are acutely limiting our ability to achieve the desired condition? (Fig. 5, Step 5)2.3. What conservation actions are available to overcome these limiting factors? (Fig. 5, Steps 2b, 6)

3. Where should we apply these conservation actions to effect the greatest change at the lowest possible total monetary and non-monetary costs to management agencies and societies? (Fig. 5, Steps 6, 9-10b)

4. How much of a particular type of conservation actions will be necessary to reach our stated desired condition?(Fig. 5, Steps 9-11)

6

5. What are the key uncertainties in the answers to questions 1-4 and what assumptions were made in developing the strategy? These will guide our research and monitoring activities (Fig. 5, Steps 7-8b).

The Landscape Integrity Index is a metric that ties the GNLCC Conservation Targets to the GNLCC Vision and Goals. We define landscape integrity as the ability of ecological systems to support and maintain communities of organisms that exhibit composition, structure, and function (after Noss 1990) comparable to those of natural habitats within an area (after Parrish et al. 2003). We define a Landscape Integrity Index (LII, described more completely in section 2) as the product of threat intensity (I) and threat geographic footprint (F). Landscapes have high integrity where core areas of relatively intact natural areas have low levels of human modification; there are linkages connecting those cores; and focal disturbance processes (e.g., wildland fire), focal ecosystems or habitats (e.g., wetlands), and focal taxa (e.g., greater sage-grouse) exist. Because no single metric accurately measures all of these ecological conditions, the GNLCC will employ multiple, combined approaches to: measure the status of conservation targets, understand and describe desired conditions, and design and evaluate our collective progress towards meeting stated goals (See Section 2). Using these combined approaches, we will use indices that (a) measure impact and (b) measure conservation success. We will also link specific management strategies to conservation targets and threats to assess whether GNLCC goals are being achieved. In Section 1, we address fine filter taxa, ecosystems, habitats, and ecosystem processes and describe how they collectively inform goal advancement. In Section 2, we address generalized concepts of ecological integrity.

7

SECTION 1: Conservation Targets

Stepwise Process

Figure 5: Stepwise Process for the GNLCC Science Plan

The Science Plan describes the process by which the community of GNLCC stakeholders collaboratively act on Conservation Targets. The Plan calls for defined science needs, applications, and estimates of conservation action effectiveness toward attaining collective landscape integrity. The Stepwise Process links a series of conservation paradigms and strategies, such as vulnerability assessments, conservation triage, etc., into a logical progression toward addressing GNLCC goals.

We selected 4 Targets: grizzly bear, cutthroat trout, wetlands, and fire regime as proofs-of-concept. Here we demonstrate how the Stepwise Process can address each type of Target. For the first proof of concept, grizzly bear, we elaborate on each step of the Stepwise Process. In subsequent examples, focus is on application of the process steps to attain objectives.

To date, GNLCC partners have made varying levels of progress working on parts of each of these four examples; therefore, some examples have more complete information than others. This illustrates the state of information for the full suite of conservation targets and the challenge of bringing these together under a single landscape framework. It also allows us to use a few examples to evaluate progress while using others to consider how we approach targets through hypothetical application.

8

Figure 6. Steps 1 - 2 of GNLCC Science Plan Stepwise Process.

Step 1a: Strategic Conservation FrameworkCompleted by GNLCC staff, reviewed by the Advisory Team, and approved by the Steering Committee in 2013, the GNLCC Strategic Conservation Framework (Chambers et al. 2013) spells out the GNLCC’s Conservation Goals and priority Targets (see GNLCC Conservation Vision, Goals & Targets, above, and http://greatnorthernlcc.org/sites/default/files/documents/gnlcc_framework_final_small.pdf).

Step 1b: Refine Conservation Target PrioritiesA more quantitative approach to linking Targets to priorities will likely lead to two immediate outcomes: 1) a recognition of specific science needs to inform this early planning process and, 2) identification of important conservation targets that will help inform conservation goal achievement but are currently missing or mis-prioritized. This represents a first iterative assessment in the stepwise process. It is an ideal role for Partner Forums as members become familiar with the Process and call out oversights in preceding steps. A target’s evaluation at this step ensures inclusivity of partners and conservation targets. An example of the step is the GNLCC Science Webinar Series (https://my.usgs.gov/confluence/display/GNLCC/GNLCC+Science+Webinar+Series+2013), when a suite of partners reflected and commented on the GNLCC prioritization process. Within the 5 years of this Plan we expect 4 additional states to deliver revised State Wildlife Action Plans (Wyoming revised its plan in 2013) and the USFWS to initiate a surrogate species approach. GNLCC will recognize and integrate emerging prioritization approaches; thus periodic review is an integral, iterative step.

Step 2a: Map Conservation Targets to GoalsBecause the ultimate objective is to measure the GNLCC partnership’s progress toward meeting our shared Conservation Goals, we need to identify appropriate metrics. Suitable metrics can be derived using Conservation Targets, though first they must be logically linked and evaluated. This task will be led by Advisory Team specialists but requires the substantial local knowledge and discipline-specific expertise that exists in the Partner Forums. It is an important, necessary step for several reasons. First,

9

conducting the process is a way to engage Partner Forum members – the recognized local experts with specific knowledge about which metrics contribute to high ecosystem integrity. Engaging asking Tasking the Partner Forums here is the first step of a theme that runs through the Science Plan: engaging conservation practitioners in the Partner Forums builds capacity, expands the Cooperative, and guides responsiveness to on-the-ground questions and needs. Second, identifying and prioritizing (in an ecological relationship sense) informs us of useful metrics for the high level Goals. It sets the stage for steps 3-6 (and beyond) by helping us think about appropriate measures and actions that will achieve goals.

The first sub-step is drafting qualitative links among Conservation Targets and Goals (Table 2 is an example).

Conservation Goal

Sage Steppe Forum

Rocky Mountain Forum

Columbia Basin Forum

Cascadia Forum

Large Intact Blocks Greater-sage grousePygmy rabbitSage shrub/grasslands

Grizzly bearWolverineCanada lynx

SalmonRiversSage shrub/grasslands

WolverineCanada lynxSalmonWoodlandSub alpine

Connectivity / Permeability

PronghornMule deerSage shrub/grasslandsRiparianConnectivity

Whitebark pineBull troutCutthroat troutTrumpeter swanMule DeerGrizzly bearWolverineCanada lynxRiparianAlpine

SalmonSteelheadMule deerRiparianRiverAquatic connectivityConnectivity

Whitebark pineSalmonSteelheadMule deerRiparianAlpine

Aquatic Integrity WetlandsRiversPothole Lakes

Cutthroat TroutBull TroutWetlandsAlpine Lakes

SalmonSteelheadRiversWetlands

SalmonSteelheadRiversWetlands

Disturbance within Future Range of Variability

Greater sage-grouseBurrowing OwlNatural fire regime

Whitebark pineWoodlandSub alpineFire RegimeNatural fire regimeInsects and forest pathogens

WetlandsWatershed UplandsNatural fire regime

Whitebark pineWoodlandSub alpineNatural fire regimeInsects and forest pathogens

Table 2. A first approximation linking Conservation Targets to Goals. The Science Plan calls for subject matter expertise to augment this matrix.

Step 2b: Scope Conservation Threats and Actions

10

At this step the focus shifts to specific Targets. Scoping conservation threats and conservation actions is a critical step as described by the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation approach (http://www.conservationmeasures.org/; Salafsky et al. 2008). Because our traditional conservation practices have been multi-disciplinary, respective disciplines have developed their own terminology. A more integrative, inter-disciplinary approach calls for a standard lexicon (Salafsky et al. 2008) as a common language. The lexicon attempts to define the ‘universe’ of threats and conservation actions. Step 2b of the Science Plan standardizes each conservation target to the lexicon as a means to consistently feed a Conceptual Model (Step 3) for each Conservation Target. We rely on the expertise exemplified by the Partner Forums to specify threats and actions in a structured discussion framed by the Salafsky et al. (2008) lexicon.

Adopting the Salafsky et al. (2008) lexicon causes no loss of resolution from the Strategic Conservation Framework. For example, the Framework identifies 3 landscape stressors: Climate Change, Invasive Species, and Land Use Change (Chambers et al. 2013, page 7). These impact-scales are termed contributing factors (defined as: the ultimate factors, usually social, economic, political, institutional, or cultural, that enable or otherwise add to the occurrence or persistence of proximate direct threats) by Salafsky et al. (2008). To a degree, differences in terminology are semantic: GNLCC Steering Committee members agree these are the primary, high-level concerns in the geography. Placing them and other conservation threats and response actions serves to ensure the partnership is thinking and speaking in common terms.

Salafsky et al. (2008) describes a nested classification with 3 levels of threat. The highest (Table 3, left column) is coarse and describes general human activities; the second level (the body of Table 3) indicates finer – though still fairly general –activities that may impact a specific Conservation Target. Consider that not all threats impact all Conservation Targets (as indicated by blank cells in the Table 3) and this second level is worthy of additional discussion. However, the important determinations are ‘3 rd level’ threats which identify specific threats or conditions that impact the Conservation Target. Through a structured discussion with Partner Forum members, the objectives are to: (1) identify those 3 rd level threats that either occur at landscape scales or, by virtue of their pervasiveness, express across large geographies and (2) focus on the threats of highest priority. A parallel exercise for conservation actions (Table 4) will give us the elements we need for Conceptual Models (Step 7).

Goal 1: Maintain Large Intact Blocks

Conservation Targets

Grizzly Bear Connectivity

Contributing Factor:

Climate Change

Land Use Change

Climate Change

Invasive Species

Land Use Change

THREATS:

1. Residential and Commercial Development

1.1 Housing and Urban Areas

X X

1.2 Commercial and Industrial Areas

X X

11

1.3 Tourism and Recreation Areas

X

2. Agriculture and aquiculture

2.1 Annual and perennial nontimber crops

X X

2.3 Livestock farming and ranching

X X X

3. Energy production and mining

3.1 oil and gas drilling X

3.3 renewable energy X

4. Transportation and service corridors

4.1 roads and railroads X X X

4.2 utility and service lines

X X

5. Biological resource use

5.1 Hunting and Collecting Terrestrial Mammals

5.3 logging and wood harvesting

X X X

5.4 fishing and harvesting aquatic resources

X

6. Human intrusions and disturbance

6.1 recreational activities

X X X

7. Natural system modifications

7.1 fire and fire suppression

X

7.2 dams and water management/use

X X

7.3 other ecosystem modifications

X X

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes

8.1 invasive non-native/alien species

X X

8.2 problematic native species

X X

9. Pollution 9.1 household sewage and urban waste water

X

9.2 industrial and military effluents

X X

9.3 agricultural and forestry effluents

X X

11. Climate change and severe weather

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration

X

12

11.2 droughts X X

11.3 temperature extremes

X

11.4 storms and flooding

X X

Table 3. Coarse- and mid- level Conservation Threats [as classified by Salafsky et al. (2008)] that impact grizzly bear and bear habitat in terms of maintaining large blocks of intact habitat. Only threats relevant to bears listed here.

An example describing threats influencing fire regime:

Conservation Target Fire Regime

Contributing Factor: Climate Change Land Use Change

THREATS:

1. Residential and commercial development

1.3 Tourism and recreation areas X

2. Agriculture and aquiculture

2.2 Wood and Pulp Plantations X

3. Energy production and mining

3.3 Renewable energy X

4. Transportation and service corridors

4.1 Roads and railroads X

4.2 Utility and service lines X

5. Biological resource use 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting X X

6. Human intrusions and disturbance

6.1 Recreational activities X X

6.3 Work and other activities X

7. Natural system modifications

7.1 Fire and fire suppression X X

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications X X

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes

8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species X

8.2 Problematic native species X

9. Pollution 9.5 Airborne pollutants X

9.6 Excessive energy X

11. Climate change and severe weather

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration X X

13

11.2 droughts X X

11.3 temperature extremes X

11.4 storms and flooding X X

Similarly, we identify conservation actions (Table 4). Again the Level 1 (left column) and Level 2 (Table 4, column 2) Actions are coarse and (probably) easily identified by GNLCC staff and the AT. It is the Level 3, fine resolution, actions that we strive to capture for Conservation Targets within and beyond the Great Northern. Similar to Threats, which we prioritize through input from Partner Forums, we strive to assemble a “Managers Toolbox” of ongoing actions and innovative approaches that are either currently being tested or in a conceptual stage. Thinking through and documenting actions will give us the management elements we need to build Conceptual Models.

Goal 1: Maintain Large Intact Blocks

Conservation Targets

Grizzly Bear Connectivity

Contributing Factor:

Climate Change

Land Use Change

Climate Change

Invasive Species

Land Use Change

ACTIONS:

1. Land/water protection

1.1 site/area protection X X

1.2 resource and habitat protection

X X X

2. Land/water management

2.1 site/area management

X X X X X

2.2 invasive/problem species control

X

2.3 habitat and natural process restoration

X X X

3. Species management

3.1 species management

X

3.2 species recovery X

3.3 species reintroduction

X X X

4. Education and awareness

4.1 formal education X X X X X

14

4.2 training X X X X X

5. Law and policy 5.1 legislation X X

5.2 policies and regulations

X X X

5.3 private sector standards and codes

X X X

5.4 compliance and enforcement

X X X X X

6. Livelihood, economic and otherincentives

6.1 linked enterprises and livelihoodalternatives

X

6.3 market forces X X X

6.4 conservation payments

X X X

7. External capacity building

7.1 institutional and civil society development

X X X

7.2 alliance and partnership development

X X X X X

7.3 conservation finance

X X X

Table 4. Coarse- and mid-level Conservation Actions for grizzly bear and bear habitat in terms of maintaining large blocks of intact habitat.

An example describing conservation actions on wetlands:

Contributing Factor: Climate Change Land Use Change

Invasive Species

ACTIONS:1. Land/water protection 1.1 site/area

protectionX X

1.2 resource and habitat protection

X X

2. Land/water management 2.1 site/area management

X

2.2 invasive/ problematic species control

X

2.3 habitat and natural process restoration

X

3. Species management 3.1 species management

X X X

3.2 species recovery

15

3.3 species reintroduction

X

3.4 ex situ conservation

4. Education and awareness 4.1 formal education X X X4.2 training X X X4.3 awareness & communications

X X X

5. Law and policy 5.1 legislation X5.2 policies and regulations

X X

5.3 private sector standards and codes

X X

5.4 compliance and enforcement

X X

6. Livelihood, economic and other incentives

6.1 enterprises and livelihood alternatives

X

6.2 substitution6.3 market forces X6.4 conservation payments

X X

6.5 nonmonetary values

X

7. External capacity building 7.1 institutional and civil society development7.2 alliance and partnership development

X X X

7.3 conservation finance

X

16

Figure 7. Steps 3 - 6 of GNLCC Science Plan Stepwise Process.

Step 3: Conceptual ModelsOnce partners align regarding concepts, terms, threats, and actions, we initiate adaptive management as applied to conservation delivery. The next step is to develop common understanding of each focal Target’s ecological relationships. We do this by building conceptual models (CM) that may start off fairly simple (Figure 8) but can get rather complex (Figure 9). The Science Plan calls for a basic conceptual model for each Conservation Target. Conceptual models inform subsequent steps of Setting Quantifiable Objectives (Step 4, Fig 7), Identifying Limiting Factors (Step 5), and Calculating Action Contributions (Step 6) for each Conservation Target but also provide the synthetic benefit of understanding how and when Conservation Threats, Limiting Factors and Conservation Actions align among two or more Conservation Targets. This alignment informs Step 6 when we calculate the relative contribution of Conservation Actions (see below). Understanding the potential for multiple benefits of a given action adjusts the equation for that action and informs which actions may provide the greatest benefit. A conceptual model can also be a useful tool during collaborative planning, as it helps make participants’ assumptions about the system and key drivers transparent.

•There are 4 grizzly ecosystems defined by IGBC in within GLNCC (note: no bears in 3)

•WBP is an important food source in systems 2,4; don’t know about 1,3 (note: 2 is a composite of 3 systems; WBP is all but gone in the NCDE, not Selkirks, Cab-Yaak)

•WBP is highly impacted by invasives (blister rust) and climate change (treeline shifts); WBP is highly impacted by MPB, a native species where infestation is outside natural range due to climate change.

•Cutthroat Trout is important food source for grizzly in 2,4;

17

•CT is highly impacted by invasives (introduced fish and possibly ANS) and by climate change (change in water temperature, flow, timing etc. changes distribution and survival)

•Land Disturbance, specifically road density, has a population level effect on grizzly bears, primarily through mortality; also large roads like Interstate or 4-lane highways effectively block grizzly movements.

•Connectivity within ecosystems and between ecosystems is a primary issue for grizzly bear sustainability

•Grizzlies are omnivore generalists and are not strongly reliant on any particular ecosystem or habitat

Figure 8. Example conceptual model of conservation relationships for grizzly bear (Chambers et al. 2013). This example incorporates the suite of priority conservation targets identified by the GNLCC and is augmented by additional information describing those relationships.

18

Figure 9. Transboundary Grizzly bear conceptual model from Servheen and Cross (2010). The level of detail here and in supporting data and information in Servheen and Cross (2010) are the level of detail needed to initiate Steps 4-6 on the Science Plan. Terms and concepts used here must be evaluated against the standard lexicon to enable synthesis with parallel models.

Conceptual models can benefit from a suite of conservation-themed approaches and highly useful software.

Approaches Software Vulnerability Assessments MiradiState and Transition Modeling ST-SIMEtc Etc

Step 4: Set Quantifiable ObjectivesHere we begin transition from a conceptual to a quantitative approach by setting objectives and devising conservation strategies for focal Conservation Targets, which is a critical element of SHC (FWS 2008). Setting quantifiable objectives is a critical task for the GNLCC and partner-driven conservation in general. Many social, political, economic, and biological factors influence how objectives are set; therefore, the GNLCC Steering Committee is critical to promote agreed-upon objectives. Our primary focus here is the biological factors. Again, the first step is to identify if quantifiable objectives have been developed either through recovery planning (i.e., USFWS 2013a) or by existing, well-supported partnerships (i.e., Rich et al. 2004). For expediency, GNLCC will support such existing objectives recognizing that some may not have high rigor. Revisits might include adjustments. GNLCC-identified Targets include ecosystems/habitats and ecological processes in addition to taxa therefore we need to develop strategies for non-taxa targets.

Taxon-based objectivesPopulation (taxa) objectives are more useful if they are comprised of a desired abundance (i.e., population size) and a performance indicator (i.e., recruitment) since abundance objectives enable estimation of how much habitat to maintain and performance measures (typically a vital rate such as adult mortality or fecundity) describe the desired effect on the population (FWS 2008). In some cases these may not be practical from a management and monitoring standpoint. In that case, we may elect to use a coarser indicator (i.e., patch size, temporal trend, etc.). Moreover, the performance indicator objectives often relate back to response to habitat or population management strategies. Thus, they represent assumptions that can help us develop Steps 7a-c, (Figure 14).

Grizzly Bear ExampleTwo of the four extant populations of grizzly bear in the US portion of the GNLCC have established, agreed upon quantifiable objectives established for recovery planning (USFWS 2013a, 2013b). In line with SHC guidance and because grizzly bears are a difficult species to monitor, multiple criteria are identified to provide sufficient information upon which to base management decisions. In general, the conservation strategies set both demographic goals, which may be difficult to quantify, and demographic standards, which are objective and measurable criteria of population status and health

19

(USFWS 2013b). The goal of the agencies implementing grizzly bear conservation strategies is to maintain genetically diverse bear populations (USFWS 2013a) with a focus on maintaining minimum thresholds (population size, mortality rates) in recognition of social and political tolerance and management of human interaction.

Ecosystem Demographic Goals Demographic Standards

# Individuals Females with cubs

Management Units Occupied

Mortality Limits

Northern Continental Divide

800 21 (of 23) Females: ≤ 0.10 Males: ≤ 0.20 [per year?]

Greater Yellowstone

500 48 16 (of 18) Calculated [annually?]

Table 6. Population-based objectives for two grizzly bear populations (extracted from USFWS 2013a, USFWS 2013b).

Habitat and Ecosystem-based ObjectivesThe conservation literature has extensive treatment on developing population (taxa)-based objectives but less emphasis on objective setting for coarser conservation targets.

Wetlands ExampleGenerally, SHC is thought of as a four-step process, where a species is the conservation target as well as the subject of the biological planning phase, and habitats are the subject of the conservation design phase. Once objectives are set for a species, then habitats can be designed to meet those objectives. Conservation delivery and monitoring follow. Here, wetlands (a habitat type) are targets in and of themselves, so the division between biological planning and conservation design is less clear. Most of the needs regarding landscape-level wetland conservation fit into this planning/design phase of SHC.

Ecosystem Process-based ObjectivesThe conservation literature has extensive treatment on developing population (taxa)-based objectives but less emphasis on objective setting for coarser conservation targets.

Natural Fire Regime

20

Step 5: Identify Limiting FactorsFactors that limit populations below objective levels are typically identified in National, State, and/or Provincial Recovery Plans for species listed as endangered or threatened. They tend to be lacking for species that have not been identified as of concern.

Using grizzly bear as the example Conservation Target, GNLCC staff and the AT translate the conservation threats developed for Conceptual Models and lead the Partner Forums through a process to elaborate on the threats. As we drill down we identify the threats that are limiting achievement of target objectives (i.e., population abundance and vital rate). This serves 3 purposes. First, it sets the parameter inputs for subsequent modeling (Step 7). Second it initiates our identification of uncertainty – this informs modeling and starts to populate Step 7a (Identify Uncertainties) as a key deliverable for the Science Plan. Third, it also begins the structured approach to Step 6 as we formulate the suite of potential management actions that could lead to achieving our objectives. An important institutional element is continuing Partner Forums engagement. We call on the experts to help us drill down for each one of these Conservation Targets under the GNLCC Goal. In concept it opens the door to LCC participation and helps folks recognize their value beyond their jurisdictional boundaries. If done correctly (i.e., using tools like Meeting Sphere) it could be dynamic, informative and draw the experts into a community that defines the Partner Forums.

Step 6: Calculate Relative EfficiencyHere we propose to adopt the conservation triage approach of Botrill et al. (2008) as a way to calculate the relative costs and benefits of conservation actions identified in Step 2b and refined by setting objectives and identifying limiting factors. Botrill presents a simple, scalable formula for comparing conservation actions.

Where:P [success] = probability of successValue = distinctiveness of the conservation targetBenefit = net increase toward quantifiable objective, andCost = of the action in dollars

Much of our conservation action across the landscape is initiated with minimal understanding of the relative value of each action’s contribution to our shared objective. Part of this poor understanding is our lack of shared, quantified objectives. Thus, each of these 3 steps (setting objectives, identifying limiting factors, and estimating the effect of conservation action) are iterative with subsequent modeling exercises. This conservation triage approach initiates and informs the ‘what should we do’ question (Steps 8 – 9). Applying triage incorporates societal, ecological, and economic value and the predictive element of estimating how efficiently a given action, or suite of actions, will move us toward our objectives.

21

Figure 10. Steps 7 - 8 of GNLCC Science Plan Stepwise Process.

Step 7: Quantitative ModelingElements are now in place to advance conservation in a defensible, transparent, analytical process. We can now develop predictive models as a means to understand and quantify uncertainty (for Step 8a) and prioritize and evaluate management actions in terms of their relative benefit to achieving objectives (Step 9). Steps 8 and 9 (Determine Actions) are inherently iterative since management actions are already occurring and are natural inputs into modeling. The desired outcome leading to Step 9 is guidance on what actions should take place. Model predictions might stop at concluding an interim condition (i.e., min canopy cover; % edge) that inform that next step of designing a management strategy. In that case, the obvious questions are: What approaches might get us to those conditions and which are most cost-effective? (e.g., Step 6).

Models are a means of organizing science to aid in understanding:• the relationship between populations (Step 4) and limiting factors (Step 5)• how a system functions by expressing real relationships in simplified terms

Application of models to spatial data should target specific management treatments (step 6) that can remediate limiting factor(s). Models should be stated in explicit and measurable terms and systematically applied so the products of applying them are useful for communicating the scientific foundation for actions, decisions, and recommendations, thereby yielding greater transparency and credibility. The process of explicitly stating a model enables critical evaluation of uncertainties and assumptions, determines confidence in the predictions (leading to Step 9), and targets information needs (leading to Step 8a).

22

Model predictions must be expressed in the same terms as quantitative objectives to (1) estimate the amount of management necessary to attain quantitative objectives; and (2) facilitate estimates of project, program, or agency accomplishments and progress toward achieving those objectives.

Grizzly Bear Example:

Figure 12: One step up from an influence diagram is to statistically denote the strength of the connections. This example uses path regression analysis, where the values are partial correlation

coefficients between the variables … * and ** denote significant and highly significant correlation levels, and U = uncertainty or unknown effects. From Woods et al. 1996.

23

Figure 13: Bayesian Network models can explicitly include decision nodes and utility nodes. The model can calculate the expected value (cost or benefit, as you set it up) for each decision, and thus an optimal

decision pathway. Here’s a hypothetical example pertaining to timber management and road development decisions (the blue nodes are decision nodes) and various costs associated with decisions or

outcomes (the pink hexagon shaped nodes), that can influence habitat for marten.

Wetlands

Conceptual model describing how wetlands interact with other GNLCC conservation targets

Step 8a: Identifying UncertaintyOne outcome of the modeling exercise (along with prior steps) is a complete picture of uncertainty and information gaps. These outcomes encompass a large proportion of our Science Needs (but see steps 10a-b). Based on earlier priority setting and as complete a picture of each Conservation Target, the result of Step 9a is the guidance for GNLCC’s Annual Workplan.

Process Step Need1b. Refine Conservation Target Priorities

Re-assess priorities based on partner input & programs i.e.,Surrogate Species, SWAP revisions, etc.

3. Conceptual Modeling Conceptual models describing ecological roles, threats and action opportunities

4. Set Quantifiable Objectives Standards and strategies for setting quantifiable objectives across range of Targets

24

5. Identify Limiting Factors Better (more quantitative & analytical) understanding of the factors limiting our objective achievement

7 Quantitative Modeling Reliable models for many Targets and synthetic models informing on multiple targets

Table 7.

Step 8b: Conduct ScienceNine (plus) iterative steps and we’ve only made it one-quarter the way around the SHC framework. But it takes this kind of patient, stepwise and iterative process to ensure our next steps are well informed – because they become more expensive and potentially difficult to reverse. They also ensure that our research investment is highly directed to ensure we pursue information to concisely inform management action. To this point, at least 6 of the 9 steps have specifically identified science needs. The final step of the science needs portion of the Science Plan is to prioritize which of those science needs are most critically needed and how to more efficiently acquire the information.

Figure 15. Steps 9 and 10 of GNLCC Science Plan Stepwise Process.

Step 9: Prioritize and Coordinate ActionThe second outcome of the modeling exercise is the suite of conservation actions that are cost effective and predicted to be ecologically effective. The result being a manager’s toolbox containing the suite of actions we will use to design a strategy through Landscape Conservation Design (Step 11; citation). We then transition into the conservation design and delivery phase using the science to guide us on what we should do to achieve our Conservation Goals and quantifiable objectives.

25

Step 10a: Data Synthesis of Legacy Conservation ActionsSeveral prior steps (2b, 6) have addressed the legacy of management actions in terms of understanding what has been done to improve the trend of priority conservation targets but we’ve yet to address and compile the results of on-the-ground actions. How much have we collectively changed the conservation estate and where have those actions occurred? To understand this we need to identify and compile data from multiple sources to document the cumulative status of past and current conservation actions. Several such data integration efforts are underway (i.e., Protected Areas Database, National Conservation Easement Database, Land Treatment Digital Library) and interoperability tools (i.e., LC MAP (see below), Data Basin) are available to facilitate additional data discovery and synthesis. Data is expensive and getting more so. The Science Plan directs GNLCC partners to maximize prior investments by ensuring legacy data is available to inform future Conservation Design.

Step 10b: Retrospective AnalysesData gathered and archived in Step 10a will be used to understand their contribution to GNLCC conservation targets. Part of this challenge is technical and will require advanced information management practices to organize data in a way that gives a comprehensive view of the conservation estate and allows a retrospective approach to focusing our current conservation need.

Figure 16. Steps 11 – 13 of GNLCC Science Plan Stepwise Process.

26

Step 11: Landscape Conservation DesignConservation design involves combining geospatial data with biological information and models to create tools such as maps that evaluate the potential of every acre of habitat to support a species’ population. Using these tools, we can determine what the current habitat-acre capability is — and what it needs to be – to achieve our biological objectives or outcomes. We can then make decisions collaboratively about the kind, quantity, and configuration of habitat needed, and what activities to undertake and where.

We adopt an adaptive framework to Landscape Conservation Design because the establishment of a conservation network is likely to take many years to implement, during which time the science of conservation biology and landscape ecology will advance and the socio-economic and political environment for conservation will change (NALCC 2013).

“Landscape Conservation Design”, or LCD, “stands as a partnership-driven method to assess current and anticipated future conditions (biological and socioeconomic), offers a spatially-explicit depiction of a desired future condition, and helps provide management prescriptions for achieving those conditions. LCD is both a process and a product.” LCD, as envisioned in the PIT report, is based on 4 foundational principles: partnership-based, science-based, technologically advanced, and iterative. LCDs are consistent with Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) and are a partnership-driven conservation strategy that identifies desired future conditions and management prescriptions at multiple scales across jurisdictions.In creating an LCD, each partner identifies the conservation features within their purview (such as the Service’ surrogate species and the Refuge System’s strategic growth priorities). This is, in effect, the biological planning portion of SHC. Collectively, these features are used to define the geographic extent of the LCD, develop conservation targets (such as population objectives) within that landscape, identify limiting factors (i.e., threats and stressors such as climate change), conduct gap and population analyses, and model future resource relationships. The partners then identify management, restoration, and protection strategies that can be implemented to address the identified resource concerns, attain desired future conditions, sustain ecosystem function, and achieve the missions, mandates, and goals of each partner organization. Upon completion of the LCD, partners implement the strategies applicable to their organization. Normally, this would require each individual partner to conduct more detailed, site-specificplanning (such as Refuge CCPs and LPPs) prior to implementation. Over time, partners monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their individual and collective implementation and reconvene to assess and revise the LCD on a periodic basis.

· LCD initiation and development are dependent on the greater conservation community’s collaborative efforts.· Conservation partners voluntarily combine their processes, data, tools, technical capacity, and other resources to create an LCD.· LCDs include biological and socioeconomic assessments of current conditions.

27

· Current threats and stressors are assessed as part of an LCD.· LCDs employ models to describe potential future conditions under various scenarios.· An LCD is neither an individual partner’s management plan nor a decision-document that requires National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.· LCDs inform the development of each partner’s site-specific management plans (and NEPA compliance documents) within the landscape described by the LCD.· LCDs are peer-reviewed.· LCDs provide information for the greater conservation community that would not have been cost-effective for each partner to obtain alone.· LCDs facilitate discussion about collaborative conservation at the landscape scale.· An LCD’s success is evaluated based on each partner’s implementation and monitoring of the strategies identified in their individual management plans.· LCDs require periodic revision based on changing conditions, the availability of new data, and/or the results of each partner’s implementation and monitoring of management actions.· LCDs catalyze the achievement of the greater conservation community’s missions, goals, and objectives.

Step 12: Act, Evaluate, MonitorThis Science Plan defines the process for partners to identify science needs for priority conservation targets and develop the roadmap to collaboratively design a landscape with high ecological integrity using the best available science. At best, the goal of this Plan moves the GNLCC to the midway point of an adaptive management cycle (Fig. 17). The next step (labeled Program Delivery in Fig. 17) is to apply conservation through a variety of on-the-ground actions, environmental education and awareness and, where necessary, regulation and enforcement. This important step is largely outside the scope of the Science Plan except for two important concepts: the design of conservation actions using an experimental approach and considerations and integration of sound monitoring protocols into conservation activities so actions themselves deliver reliable, measurable information to inform subsequent cycles.

HOW COLLABORATOR MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES INFLUENCE THESE INDICATORS

Collaborators engage in management actions and strategies that, taken collectively, are intended to improve the condition of the landscape, including efforts to improve habitats, ecosystems, species, and

28

ecosystem processes, and reduce the impact from the human footprint. These actions include protection (land acquisition, conservation easements, etc), restoration (reclamation, rehabilitation, etc.), species and habitat management, (see Safalsky et al 2008). Some collaborators such as the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and the Intermountain West Joint Venture take direct action that seeks to benefit a priority species, habitat or process. Some ecosystems groups, such as Arid Lands Initiative, Crown Managers Partnership, Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative, are a collection of partners that take individual actions that roll up into action at the ecosystem level. Some groups, such as the Washington Connected Landscape Project, provide science that serve basis for management action. Some programs and organizations, such as the USGS and the agency Inventory & Monitoring programs, monitor these species, habitats, and processes to assess whether we are meeting objectives. Over time, the results of these actions will be reflected in the targets selected for the index and will thus contribute to the GNLCC collective vision of a landscape that sustains its diverse natural systems.

PARTNER EFFORTS TO MEASURE OR MONITOR LANDSCAPE INTEGRITY

Effort Extent Metrics OutcomesWestern Governors Association CHAT

18 Western States, including 5 states in GNLCC

Landscape Integrity dataset scheduled to be released late 2013; no specific plan to update at regular intervals

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group

State of Washington; Columbia Basin;

Coarse Scale evaluation for entire state complete; finer-scale evaluation for Columbia Basin Complete

Crown Managers Partnership Ecological Health Monitoring

Crown of the Continent

Montana Connectivity Map

State of Montana

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative

Southwest and south central Wyoming

BLM Wyoming Basins REA Omenik’s Wyoming Basins (Level III Ecoregion)

Scheduled to be completed 2014; no schedule for revision or update

BLM Middle Rockies REA Omerik’s Wyoming Basins Level III Ecoregion

Scheduled to be completed 2014; no schedule for revision or update

29

Step 13: Repeat

Led by the GNLCC Steering Committee and Advisory Team, the process repeats in timeframes built around improved knowledge, technology, and conservation need.

30

SECTION 2: Landscape Goals

Landscape conservation is a challenge of scales: spatial, temporal, ecological, jurisdictional, and socio-political. Preceding conservation paradigms (i.e., FWS 2008) have successfully defined useful frameworks within a specified spatial scale. However, an LCC’s challenge is to understand and address conservation objectives concurrently at many different scales. The Cooperative must roll up conservation actions aimed at specific targets to advance landscape-scale subgoals and roll those up to achieve our vision of landscapes with high ecological integrity.

Advancement toward goals requires agreement on desired conditions. For individual conservation targets, we look to quantifiable objectives. However, clearly articulated quantifiable objectives may not be practical at broad ecological scales. For example, Goal 1 (maintaining large intact landscapes of naturally functioning terrestrial and aquatic community assemblages) calls for desired condition of community elements (community assemblages) and geospatial considerations (large intact landscapes). Section 1 describes how to achieve fine scale objectives but setting objectives for landscape elements (i.e., how large? what defines “intact”?) present different challenges. Landscape Conservation Design (Section 1, step 11) helps us collectively address stated desired conditions by linking target-scale approaches to specific geographies. There may be some instances where subgoal desired conditions are directly quantifiable but in other cases the GNLCC will develop an iterative index, the Landscape Integrity Index, using spatial modeling to track and refine existing condition relative to qualitative expression of desired condition.

GNLCC has identified climate change, land use change, and invasive species as priority landscape stressors (Chambers 2013). Achieving our collective vision (through subgoals and conservation targets) requires understanding effects of stressor status and trend on conservation targets. Data describing stressors vary but in general are more available for climate change and land use and largely lacking for invasive species. However, our immediate, proximate conservation actions typically focus on land-use change and invasive species. GNLCC will focus a landscape approach on land use change because it is where our knowledge (data) and opportunity (conservation action) converge.

The four GNLCC goals embody the definition, maintenance, and improvement of landscape integrity. We characterize landscape integrity as the inverse of human modification (i.e., the ‘H’ index in Theobald 2013) and as a subset of ecological integrity as defined by Noss (1990) and Parrish et al. (2003). Areas of high ecological integrity have unfragmented natural landscapes, highly functioning biotic processes and native biotic components within a natural range of variability, and few impacts from invasive species. In other words, they have the composition, structure, and function of less-altered landscapes (Noss 1990). These areas are resilient to change, often contain large intact blocks of land, and sustain healthy and connected populations of fish, wildlife, and plants. Additional background and justification are in Appendix D.

Increasingly, natural resource agencies and organizations are monitoring and evaluating the status and condition of their lands and waters by measuring some element of ecological integrity of landscapes (e.g., Canada National Parks Act (2000), Lindenmayer et al. 2000, IUCN 2006; Fancy et al. 2007, Borja et al. 2008, US Forest Service Forest Planning Rule 2012, National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). For example, some measure of landscape integrity is typically used when assessing the current

31

status and likely future condition of coarse-filter conservation elements that are key to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs; http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach/reas.html). Additional examples include the National Park Service’s Natural Resource Condition Assessments (http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/nrca/), the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) initiative on Wildlife Corridors and Crucial Habitat (www.westgov.org/initiatives/wildlife), and the US Department of the Interior’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs; www.lccnetwork.org).

Landscape Integrity IndexThe GNLCC will develop a Landscape Integrity Index (LII) for the Great Northern region to serve as a 2014 baseline and provide the opportunity to monitor movement toward (or away from) desired condition from this baseline. The LII estimates landscape-scale threats to Conservation Targets as described by Salafsky et al. (2008) and modeled by Theobald (2013). Briefly, the LII is used to characterize every pixel on the landscape in terms of its relative ecological integrity on a scale of 0 – 1. Evaluating collections of pixels within ecological (i.e., hydrologic units, vegetation communities), ecotypic (i.e., Partner Forums, ecoregions), or socio-political (i.e., states) units will provide characterizations of landscape integrity for those units. The LII approach promotes iteration in both spatial and temporal contexts and approximates a condition estimate that all GNLCC partners can identify with. This first iteration will allow the Cooperative to track changes by land use impact over time and identify important data gaps that are specifically identified at finer scales via the process described above (Section 1). The GNLCC-wide Landscape Integrity map will inform annual workplans in terms of prioritizing data acquisition and focus the partnership on particularly sensitive or threatened locales and conservation targets that are in need of attention and ripe for conservation action. Subsequent iterations, which will occur as a precedent to each 5 year Science Plan will use updated spatial data generated through GNLCC workplans and by partners developing CHAT, REA, and other spatial data improvements. Additional data layers such as the Protected Areas Database (USGS [link]; Cons. Bio. Inst. [link]), Conservation Easements Database (Defenders), Land Treatment Digital Library (USGS) and others will serve as initial representations of Conservation Actions (sensu Salafsky et al. 2008). These data will be overlaid with the LII to inform partners regarding historical and ongoing conservation activities. Appendix D and Theobald (2013) describe the technical approach to developing the LII.

DEFINING METRICS AND GEOGRAPHIES FOR LANDSCAPE INTEGRITYQuantifying the impacts of land use, invasive species, and climate change and our collective conservation response to these stressors can be considered “Conservation Potential.” In addition, select focal ecological process, ecosystems or habitats, and taxa can be tracked to provide detail to Landscape Integrity measures and to determine how collective management actions are contributing to conserving specific resources. A concise understanding of partner interests describes how entities co-function.

32

Type of CT

Conservation Target/Metric

Scale/Area Objective set by: Monitored by:

Stressor

Land Use/Invasives GNLCC Theobald (2013) Baseline

GNLCC

Land Use/Invasives Sage Steppe Forum Rocky Mountain Forum Columbia Basin F Cascadia F Theobald (2013) Baseline

GNLCC

Land Use/Invasives WY B Columbia Plateau

High Divide

CoC GYA Columbia River Cascades Theobald (2013) Baseline

GNLCC

AIS Potential GNLCC AT Project

GNLCC

Climate Change Past and projected climate change described by area; impacts assessed per Conservation Target Hostetler, CIG, etc Climate Science Centers

Ecosystem

Processes

Connectivity Baseline CHAT model

WGA

Wildland Fire Baseline tracked by NIFC

NIFC

Insect and Forest Pathogens

Baseline tracked by USFS

USFS

Hab or Ecosy

Wetlands IMJV GRYN NPS I&MRiverine ALI/WA Conn ALI/WA ConnSage Steppe WLCI/ALI/WA

ConnWLCI/ALI/WA Conn

Whitebark Pine Baseline tracked by NPS I&M; USGS; USFS

Baseline tracked by NPS I&M; USGS; USFS

Species

Grizzly Bear IGBC IGBCSage-Grouse ??? ???Cutthroat Trout ??? ???Mule Deer WA Conn WA ConnWolverine ??? USFS; WCSSockeye Salmon ??? ???Bull Trout USFWS USFWS

Table 8 is a proposed matrix of Landscape Integrity Indicators. Colored cells indicate where the indicator would be tracked. Yellow is an ecosystem process; Green is a habitat or ecosystem; Red is a species What is Blue?. For reporting, this type of table could serve as a template. Partners could insert numbers and/or arrows to indicate trend. WY B (Wyoming Basins); GYA (Greater Yellowstone Area); CoC (Crown of the Continent).

33

For example, the Washington Connected Landscapes Project, including Washington state and portions of Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia, chose focal species to serve as an “umbrella” that would encompass the diverse habitat needs of a broader array of species of conservation concern (http://waconnected.org/wp-content/themes/whcwg/docs/statewide-connectivity/2010DEC%2017%20WHCWG%20Statewide%20Analysis%20FINAL.pdf, Chapter 2), and choose focal species to represent the connectivity needs of wildlife species for which coarse-scale planning is relevant. These species were selected based on their sensitivity to landscape features such as transportation infrastructure and urban development (WHCWG 2010). The team selected 11 focal species for the Columbia Plateau ecoregion, including Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, black tailed jackrabbit, white-tailed jackrabbit, Townsend’s ground squirrel, Washington ground squirrel, least chipmunk, mule deer, western rattlesnake, beaver, and tiger salamander (WHCWG 2012). Of these, greater sage-grouse and mule deer are GNLCC conservation targets.

The Crown Managers Partnership (CMP), covering the Crown of the Continent in portions of Montana, British Columbia, and Alberta, has adopted a Strategic Plan that strives for an ecologically healthy Crown achieved by management actions of multiple agencies each operating within their own jurisdiction with common goals in mind. The Managing for Ecological Health Project identifies six broad indicators to describe ecological health in the Crown: landscapes, water quantity and quality, biodiversity, invasive species, air quality, and climate. CMP partners are developing coordinated cross-jurisdictional management outcomes for a suite of trans-boundary focal species using occupancy and abundance models for grizzly bear, wolverine, cutthroat trout, and bull trout, all of which are GNLCC Conservation Targets.

Formed by practitioners in the Cascade Mountains of Washington and British Columbia during the summer of 2012, the Cascadia Partner Forum fosters a network of natural resource practitioners working with the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to build the adaptive capacity of the landscape and species living within it. The forum hosted a series of workshops (2012-2013) to hear from a diverse array of partners on the ground in this transboundary landscape, and has hired three research fellows to organize and synthesize information to guide Pilot Council discussions. Four priority issues within Cascadia have been identified by the Pilot Council to focus on in 2013: 1) Habitat connectivity, 2) Water, 3) Iconic Species: Wolverine and Sockeye salmon, and 4) Access Management. The partner forum’s fellows are preparing a report that provides a synthesis of existing information on these priority issues, discusses case studies within the Cascadia region on each topic, highlights success stories in Cascadia, and identifies funding needs for further information and climate adaptation actions.

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative is a long-term, science-based program to assess and enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitats at the landscape scale in southern Wyoming, while facilitating responsible development through local collaboration and partnerships. The WLCI works to ensure that wildlife and habitat remain viable across the landscape, even with significant development pressure. The priority objectives addressed within the focus communities are: fragmented habitats, invasive species, and water quality and quantity. Greater sage-grouse has been a focal species of the WLCI since Wyoming harbors approximately 36-40% of the rangewide population of sage-grouse.

Each of these partnerships and the organizations that participate have preexisting missions and mandates. We cannot expect to measure any of these focal species across the whole GNLCC landscape. For example, we will

34

likely facilitate monitor grizzly bears in the GYA and/or Crown relying on existing efforts. We can measure, estimate, and characterize broad-scale metrics that help us understand status in terms of subgoals and interpret those results to estimate landscape integrity.

HOW THESE INDICATORS WORK TOGETHER TO INDICATE LANDSCAPE INTEGRITY FOR THE GNLCC:

The LII map informs us where the more intense human impact is occurring, and where there is a high need to conserve native species, ecosystems, and processes. If LII is remaining relatively stable or decreasing (less human impact) we assume that ecosystem integrity at a coarse resolution in the GNLCC is maintained or improved. The next finer spatial and ecological resolution to address is exemplified by the four GNLCC Conservation Targets: large intact blocks, connectivity, aquatic integrity, and ecosystem resilience. Because these goals represent finer ecological targets and in deference to the legacy of land management scaling in the region; we will address these at the ecotypic scales identified in the Conservation Framework – the Partner Forums.

For example, we have very good connectivity data in the Columbia Basin and the basic concepts on how to index relative patch quality stemming from work by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (J. Pierce, pers. comm.). However, it is very unlikely that we would be able to replicate these assessments across a broader landscape, at least immediately. Likewise, we have access to good measures of ecosystem resilience in sagebrush steppe systems (J. Chambers et al. 2013). We’ve seen from the Demonstration Project that legacy institutions are (rightfully) hesitant to adopt landscape-scale, partner-driven approaches but we can explore and “drive” the collaboration in the Partner Forums. In the case of the Columbia Basin, GNLCC will (continue to) support the connectivity work and landscape conservation design approach. We will seek to integrate patch-scale characterizations of ecological integrity and through the LII, define how intact the CB large block is and where resilience is high (and low). The assessment will identify specific needs that the PF will address. We know the CBPF will include aquatic integrity folks. Scaling up, we also explore and identify how the Columbia Basin connects with neighboring blocks to address the four goals at scales approaching the GNLCC as a whole. Do similar synthetic work in other PFs.

This multi-scale approach will help to estimate if we are reaching our common vision of a landscape that sustains its diverse natural systems to support healthy and connected populations of fish, wildlife, and plants; sustains traditional land uses and cultural history; and supports robust communities.

IMMEDIATE SCIENCE NEEDS FOR LANDSCAPE INTEGRITY ESTIMATION

Currently, the impacts of climate change are not well reflected in Landscape Integrity Index. Also, as it stands, this index is a more robust tool within terrestrial systems than in aquatic systems. And, a database describing the distribution of terrestrial non-native and invasive plants database is incomplete; data for aquatic invasive species is missing entirely. Also, landscape integrity is not as robust as a measure of our vision as is ecological integrity, which also reflects biodiversity, patterns of landscape heterogeneity, and an ecologically connected landscape. The State of Washington has a model that ranks ecological integrity in areas throughout the state.

CITATIONS

Beever et al. Conservation Biology

35

Borja, A., D.M. Dauer, R.J. Díaz, R.J. Llansó, I. Muxika, J.G. Rodríguez, L.C. Schaffner. 2008. Assessing estuarine benthic quality conditions in Chesapeake Bay: a comparison of three indices. Ecological Indicators 8:395–403.

Botrill, M.C. et al. 2008. Is Conservation Triage just Smart Decision Making? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 23: 649-654.

Canada National Parks Act (2000). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-14.01/

Chambers, J.C., R.F. Miller, D.I. Board, D.A. Pyke, B.A. Roundy, J.B. Grace, E.W. Schupp, and R.J. Tausch. 2013. Resilience and Resistance of Sagebrush Ecosystems: Implications for State and Transition Models and Management Treatments. Rangeland Ecology & Management.

Chambers, N., G. Tabor, Y. Converse, T. Olliff, S. Finn, R. Sojda, and S. Bischke. 2013. The Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative Strategic Conservation Framework. http://greatnorthernlcc.org/sites/default/files/documents/gnlcc_framework_final_small.pdf

Fancy S.G., J.E. Gross, S.L. Carter. 2009. Monitoring the condition of natural resources in US national parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 151:161-174.

Holling, C. S. (ed.) (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: Wiley. ISBN 0-471-99632-7.

IUCN 2006;

Lindenmayer et al. 2000

Noss, R. 1990. Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach. Conservation Biology. 4:355-364.

NALCC Project Results: Landscape Conservation Design

Parrish, J.D., D.P. Braun, R.S. Unnasch. 2003. Are We Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Ecological Integrity within Protected Areas. BioScience 53:851-860.

Rich, T, et al. 2004. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan. http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/default.htm.

Salafsky, N. et al. 2008. A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation Biology.

Servheen, C. and M. Cross. 2010. Climate change impacts on grizzly bears and wolverines in the northern U.S. and Transboundary Rockies: Strategies for conservation. Report on a workshop held Sept. 13-15, 2010 in Fernie, British Columbia. 23 pp.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

USFWS. 2008. Strategic Habitat Conservation Handbook: A Guide to Implementing the Technical Elements of Strategic Habitat Conservation.

36

USFWS 2013a. Grizzly bear recovery plan: Draft revised supplement: Revised demographic recovery criteria for the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Dated February 2013. (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/RP%20supplement_Yellowstone%20Grizzly%20bear_final.pdf).

USFWS. 2013b. Draft NCDE grizzly bear conservation strategy. Dated April 2013 (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/NCDE_Draft_CS_Apr2013_Final_Version_corrected%20headers_1.pdf).

US Forest Service Forest Planning Rule 2012,

Woods, G. R., D. C. Guynn, W. E. Hammitt, and M. E. Patterson. 1996. Determinants of participant satisfaction with quality deer management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24(2):318-324.

WHCWG 2010

WHCWG 2012

37

APPENDIX A: Tools and Technological Resources Supporting the GNLCC Science Plan

Tools to Further Landscape Conservation ScienceTo facilitate the application of science and information exchange among those partners, the GNLCC has developed the following science communication tools:

A communication strategy (http://greatnorthernlcc.org/sites/default/files/temp/comm_outreach_strategy_draft_29apr.pdf; Fig. 1) for the GNLCC clearly spells out strategies to keep key groups of partners engaged in and connected through the GNLCC. Clear communication and engagement among partners is critical for the GNLCC to function.

The GNLCC website (http://greatnorthernlcc.org) provides a location for sharing information. Specifically, for the partner forums to exchange information regarding mutual goals and shared projects, access to the results from research projects supported by the GNLCC, new tools for managers, and webinars on research and conservation initiatives happening throughout the region.

A project tracking tool (PTT) to house all science proposal, funded project and product information. The tool will serve as the point of reference for all projects GNLCC leads. The GNLCC website and other outreach sources will dynamically draw from the PTT fostering efficient, timely communication of GNLCC science and science support products. The PTT will also dynamically interact with data resources housed on LC MAP (see below). It will be integratable with National LCC Network and Climate Science Center project tracking resources (functional Dec. 2013).

LC MAP (or the Landscape Conservation Management and Analysis Portal; https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/?community=GNLCC) provides a collaborative virtual workspace for GNLCC partners to securely share, access, and analyze common datasets and information. It is a tool that facilitates data mining and discovery from the World Wide Web, uses mapping applications for data analysis, and advances collaborative research by providing a secure space for multiple partners to assess, edit, analyze, and model common data themes in near realtime - with advance data security and documentation functions..

Data standards ensure security and quality, and the ability to share and apply data throughout the region. See the document Data Management Standards for details.

These are a few of the tools developed to date to facilitate information exchange and science application among GNLCC partners. As this foundation is built, additional tools will be developed and the capacity for shared science will increase.

38

Figure A1.--Linking GNLCC Supported Science Product with GNLCC Science Plan components.

One function of the GNLCC project tracking system (PTS) is to serve as a data link between GNLCC science products and the GNLCC science plan and strategic framework components (conservation targets, strategic framework goals, and partner forum geographic areas). The linking provides the relationship for GNLCC audiences to navigate the science plan and GNLCC supported science products (data, tools, reports, etc.). The linkage includes products cataloged and archived on LC MAP, which has many robust features including a rich metadata repository. Various science plan meta-analysis reporting options can include GNLCC supported science trends, supported science gap analysis, breakdown of science products and related science plan components, spatial summarization of science plan components, etc.

Supported Science Product Archiving and Cataloging

39

Figure A2.--Product Archiving and Cataloging.

GNLCC supported science products come in many forms (vector/raster/tabular data, tools, reports, etc.) and proper cataloging and archiving ensure sustained use and discoverability. As the backbone of the science strategy’s supported science products, LC MAP is the GNLCC information system for cataloging and archiving. LC MAP has many functions including a cloud based data repository which includes robust data storage component. This repository is used as a cloud based archival repository for GNLCC deliverables. The primary repository for project information is in the project tracking system (PTS). The project and product cataloging and archiving is a two stage process starting at projects cataloged in the PTS. Projects may have one or many deliverables associated with it. At project initiation, the project background, science strategy components, and DMP are cataloged in the PTS and LC MAP. Next all supported science products are cataloged in the PTS and LC MAP and all digital data, files, and products is designed to be uploaded into LC MAP for archival. This process will be repeated if re-delivery of products is necessary or subsequent products are delivered. For more information on LC MAP visit greatnorthernlcc.org. For information on data management standards visit the Data Management Standards document.

Product (data, tools, reports, etc.) Delivery (data, visualization, tools) and GNLCC Partner Information Integration

Figure A3.--Product Delivery and Information Integration.

40

The overall methodology of GNLCC science product delivery is through cloud based architecture. The cloud based architecture allows other users or user applications (clients) to consume information and tools transferred over the internet. LC MAP is a cloud based system that can store and serve (distribute) data/metadata to others or can be a place to catalog locations on other partner cloud based systems. This framework allows for GNLCC web apps or partner web apps to utilize each other and work to entities strengths, reducing redundancy and confusion inherent with information technology duplication. Over time new hubs (cloud based web resources) will emerge and some will fade away. This design handles flexibility and scaling, minimizing disruption and promoting cooperation and growth.

Figure A4.—Technical design for Landscape Integrity Index development.

APPENDIX B: Elaboration on Wetlands Example

Wetlands in the GNLCCWetland conservation is critical to achieving all four goals outlined by the GNLCC Strategic Framework, and wetlands have rightfully been identified as one of the 29 conservation targets. They are valuable to wildlife, supporting a disproportionate number of species relative to the area they occupy on the landscape, and are equally valuable in maintaining aquatic systems by regulating surface water flow and filtering pollutants. Wetlands are also among the habitats most at risk due to climate change, putting at risk countless species that depend on them (IPCC). Furthermore, wetlands conservation is central to work that most of our partners do, making them an ideal ‘proof-of-concept’ as we begin to provide context and measure progress toward our conservation targets.

41

To achieve success in conserving wetlands, we need to identify those areas on the landscape where wetland conservation is the most critical, where and what types of wetlands are most vulnerable to change, what work has been done, what work can be expanded upon, and what knowledge gaps need to be filled.

Wetland types and decline Alpine meadows Emergent marsh Shrub scrub wetland Montane coniferous Riparian

This area has been understudied, and trends are not well understood.

Interactions between wetlands and other GNLCC targets

Wetlands can be tied to just about all of the GNLCC conservation targets either directly or indirectly. Following are the most direct links.

Of the wildlife target species in the Strategic Framework, trumpeter swans are most directly associated with wetlands. They require emergent palustrine wetlands (nontitdal, dominated by herbaceous vegetation, freshwater) for all phases of their life cycle, including breeding, migration, and wintering. These wetlands support emergent herbaceous vegetation, and do not include other wetland types, such as wooded, shrub scrub, fens, and bogs. The Rocky Mountain population has increased from ~800 in 1975 to more than 5,000 in 2005 (Flyway Council). Most of the increase has been in Canada. They also rely on connectivity of wetlands on the landscape. Although swans rely on wetlands, they do not necessarily respond to increased wetland acreage (Shea et al. 2002), and much suitable habitat exists that remains unoccupied by trumpeter swans. Because of the lack of dispersal and irregular migratory patterns, and because they do not represent all wetland types, they may not be the best ‘surrogate’ species to track wetland conservation success.Functioning wetlands rely on high-quality watershed uplands. Watersheds with intact vegetation and fewer impermeable surfaces maintain hydrology and water quality in connected wetlands. Land use change has had the biggest effect on uplands.

Wetlands enhance riparian corridors by regulating inputs into rivers, including water quality, timing of flow, and water quantity. Cutthroat trout and bull trout in turn rely on intact riparian corridors for channel stability and temperature regulation.

The contributing factors of climate change (Erwin 2009), land use change, and invasive species all degrade, or have the potential to degrade, wetland habitat and function in the GNLCC. Climate change is expected to have its most pronounced effect on hydrology in wetlands, causing altered hydroperiods and base flows. The expectation is a drying trend in the Great Northern landscape due to drier, hotter summers.

42

An SHC approach to wetlands conservation

Generally, SHC is thought of as a four-step process, where a species is the conservation target as well as the subject of the biological planning phase, and habitats are the subject of the conservation design phase. Once objectives are set for a species, then habitats can be designed to meet those objectives. Conservation delivery and monitoring follow. Here, wetlands (a habitat type) are targets in and of themselves, so the division between biological planning and conservation design is less clear. Most of the needs regarding landscape-level wetland conservation fit into this planning/design phase of SHC.

In the context of the Great Northern goals, wetlands are essential for intact large landscapes, connectivity, and functioning aquatic systems. How we prioritize wetland conservation on the landscape and how we monitor wetland change should be done to achieve progress toward those goals.

Overview of current efforts:

Wetland inventory. The most extensive inventory to date has been the National Wetland Inventory, which covers the entire U.S. portion of the Great Northern. It is a valuable tool that gives us a coarse overview of wetland concentration and wetland type (the Great Northern funded NWI in 2011, http://greatnorthernlcc.org/supported-science/122). However, much of the dataset is out of date and it does not document changes in wetland over time. Ducks Unlimited has partnered with Environment Canada to do a

43

Canadian Wetlands Inventory, but most of the GN landscape has not been completed. To begin assessing where to concentrate and what habitats to concentrate on, we need a thorough wetland inventory.

Tracking wetland change. Another component to Biological Planning is understanding how wetlands are changing in response to landscape stressors such as climate change and land use change.

The Canadian Intermountain Joint Venture conducted a pilot project that was funded by the Great Northern LCC. They examined a landscape in the South Okanagan to determine if wetland occurrence has changed over the past 20 years. To determine wetland change, they tested SPOT imagery, which is available from the 1980s and is expected to continue. The remote sensing found a significant decrease in wetland occurrence in that time period.

Wetlands Adaptation Group – Wetland hydrologic projections in response to climate change. Examining how climate change will affect wetlands of different types by using temperature and water level data combined with climate models (North Cascades).

The Greater Yellowstone Wetland and Amphibian Monitoring program has been a successful, nine-year monitoring effort that has documented wetland amphibian change due to climate change and other factors in the Yellowstone and Grand Teton landscapes (Gould 2012). It has also expanded to include Glacier National Park, with the goal of documenting amphibian and wetland trends across the Rockies.

44

Describing wetland condition. Idaho Fish and Game recently completed a statewide wetland condition model that describes the physical condition of wetlands in terms of their proximity to detrimental land uses. Land uses included in the model as impairments to wetlands include agriculture, roads, residential development, other impervious surfaces, and clearcuts. The model can demonstrate condition in any geography of interest and can be scaled up, but it lacks data on invasive species, contamination, and wetland type.

This figure shows a sample of the model. Each wetland is pixelated, and each pixel is assigned a score based on its proximity to a land use disturbance. Higher scores are associated with more disturbance. Pixel scores can be averaged across any watershed size or any other area of interest.

45

Developing priority areas for wetland conservation. Concurrent with setting wetland objectives is determining where on the landscape wetland conservation is most critical. A common theme among conservation organizations is that the need for conservation far outweighs resources available for conservation, and the landscape of the Great Northern is no exception. Therefore, focusing efforts, and articulating rationale, is necessary with limited resources.

The Intermountain West Joint Venture has done extensive work setting wetland priorities. Based on bird concentrations, they have identified 20 priority areas for wetland conservation. The 20 priority areas include 50% of the wetland acreage in the IWJV boundary, but only 6% of the landscape, and are those areas that are critical to maintain populations of target bird species. Approximately nine of the priority areas are included in the GNLCC boundary. GNLCC must enhance collaboration with IWJV to define and prioritize wetlands. Their approach is a perfect example of large-scale prioritization of wetlands that the GNLCC can build from.

46

47

Landscape Conservation Design is a new concept being promoted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that incorporates landscape priorities of multiple partners to determine common objectives. A pilot project describing terrestrial priorities has been conducted for the Columbia Plateau, and although wetlands were not the main driver, they were one of the conservation targets and played a role in determining spatial priorities.

Finally, the National Audubon Society has been designating priority landscapes for birds as well, in a system of Important Bird Areas. Many, but not all, are water-based and are a source for delineating priority wetland areas.

How to proceed

For the Great Northern, all of the aforementioned tools can be used to further conservation of wetlands, and they are scalable and adaptable. However, applying them across the entire landscape is likely too time consuming and costly, and probably unnecessary. There are two approaches to applying them.

How and where they are applied can be driven by the goals of conserving large landscapes, ensuring connectivity, and maintaining aquatic integrity. For example, in any priority large landscape identified (goal 1), wetlands will be an integral component of that landscape, and we should develop wetland targets for those landscapes. Once those large landscapes are identified, then we can focus more thorough wetland inventory efforts there, examine wetland condition, and monitor closely how wetlands in that landscape have changed and are projected to change.

Some potential areas to begin are Yellowstone, Glacier, and the South Okanagan, because of existing efforts in those areas.

Conversely, the needs of a focal species, or group of species, may direct us to an area on the landscape and define a focal area. For example, our only wetland-dependent species, trumpeter swans, can be used to prioritize where we focus wetland conservation. One of their needs is an increased wintering range outside of the tri-state area, and wetland prioritization can be done with that goal in mind. Another example is prioritizing sandhill cranes like the Intermountain West Joint Venture has done, and using them as a surrogate for other wetland species and driving the landscapes we prioritize.

With either approach, these are the questions we need to answer:

Where do wetlands occur? Where are we interested in conserving wetlands?

What is wetland condition in those areas?

How vulnerable are those areas?

Where are they most important to maintain large, connected habitat?

Where are they most vulnerable to climate change?

Where are priority wetland conservation areas for wetland-dependent wildlife?

What watersheds are most vulnerable to change?

What land use changes are driving wetland gains and losses?

Do we need more data or use existing information?

48

How do we measure success? Surrogate species?

APPENDIX C: Elaboration on Fire Regime Example

The conservation target to manage for “Natural Fire Regimes” fulfills the Strategic Conservation Framework’s Goal #4 to “Promote landscape-scale disturbance regimes that operate within a future range of variability and sustain ecological integrity”. Due to the influence of this ecological process throughout the GNLCC landscape and its interactions with other ecological processes, patterns, and structure – it can be seen as a keystone process. A fire regime is a classification that describes the patterns of fire seasonaility, frequency, size, spatial continuity, intensity, type, and severity of a spatial area. <<Insert a good definition from our science plan of what a natural fire regime is – a combination of not only historical but future to standardize what we mean by this conservation target if it is not done already elsewhere>>

Fire played a vital role in shaping the ecosystems across all of the GNLCC, but there is wide variation in the natural fire regimes that influence ecological patterns and processes. Fire suppression in the sagebrush steppe region has impacted the sagebrush communities by allowing fuels to build up over time, increasing fire severity when a fire does occur. Fire suppression has also allowed incursion of juniper woodlands into upper elevations of historic sage shrub habitat. Fires in sage shrub types reduce immediate cover and forage for greater sage-grouse. Though sage-grouse persist in sage shrub and grassland mosaics they rely on dense unburned stands of sagebrush especially during spring and winter. Landscape disturbances such as human development and transportation corridors can increase ignition risk, reduce fire management options in the case of natural fires, and increase need for fuels reduction in surrounding areas. In some portions of the GNLCC, the invasion of cheatgrass into native sage steppe communities has significantly reduced the fire return interval causing more frequent loss of important sagebrush cover for species such as sage-grouse. The accelerated fire return intervals associated with annual grass invasion and fire suppression leading to juniper invasion reduce sage shrub habitat and associated small mammal and insect populations potentially affecting burrowing owl populations. In addition to the terrestrial impacts of fire, they have the potential to positively and negatively impact aquatic systems. For example, increased size and severity of fires resulting from fire suppression and climate change will likely increase peak stream flows and flooding, reduce base flows and late-season water availability, increase size and frequency of landslides, reduce aquatic habitat quality due to increased stream temperatures and sedimentation, and increase failures of road crossing structures that result in barriers to aquatic organisms passage. <<This can be followed by a conceptual model showing the relation of fire to multiple conservation targets of a specific system or of the GNLCC – decide and insert if helpful>>

49

Table from Faulk et al 2011, Multi-scale controls of historical forest-fire regimes: new insights from fire-scar networks (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_falk_d001.pdf)

While establishing realistic goals, threats, and priority actions for this ecological process, there are key things to keep in mind. These include the need to establish reference conditions based on historical and future scenarios, classifications and metrics must be made at various spatial scales, the scale of a classification and measurement will influence the interpretation of that finding to management, the close relation of fire regimes to vegetation structure and patterns on the landscape, the land management objectives for a piece of land will influence the role and use of fire on that landscape, and the proximity of a landscape to human development and how that private land is managed (i.e. fire-safe communities).

Conservation Actions Specifically designs to address particular threatsAll conservation actions for this target require an “all lands” approach since fire regimes inherently operate across watersheds, ownerships, and land allocations.

The National Fire Plan is a cooperative, long-term effort of the USDA Forest Service, Department of Interior, and the National Association of State Foresters to manage the impact of wildland fire, while individual land owners have fire plans or land management plans that integrate the management of fire including the restoration of fire regimes. Grand Teton National Park is currently revising its Fire Plan to provide direction and establish specific procedures for all fire program activities to manage fire on an ecosystem level. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Forest Restoration Strategy integrates restoration of fire regimes into an overall strategy including metrics for guiding management and measuring success. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife lays out strategies to evaluate lands for appropriate use of prescribed fire for their “Strategy Habitat: Sagebrush Steppe and Shrublands” in their habitat assessments.

Due to the differences in the ability to manage fire on land ownerships and ecosystem types, while addressing social and ecological concerns unique to a landscape – conservation actions are best approached at the regional and partner level scale. At the regional level coordination of strategies, shared learning, and policy level discussions are appropriate. We will rely on Partner Forums to establish actions that specifically address each threat within their landscapes. We expect that these actions will include:

- Restoration of vegetation structure and pattern within plant communities (forested and sage steppe) to allow the reintroduction of fire and create more resilient stands.

- Use of prescribed fire to restore process, and utilization of wildfire where possible.

50

- Support FireWise communities and implementation of fuels reductions on private lands and around homes within the wildland urban interface.

- Invest in strategic conservation to reduce the development pressure in the wildland urban interface.- Evaluation of parcels to guide restoration actions, and analysis to ensure conservation actions at the

local scale done in a strategic way add up to landscape level patterns and impacts.

Notes on metrics and indicators. It is important to ensure that any measurement of departure is done at multiple spatial scales including regional landscapes to local landscapes to patch neighborhoods. For example, management and restoration actions often occur at the stand scale while indications of success will include not only metrics of change at that stand level but the interactions of those changes to effect a landscape scale pattern and change.

Metrics of associated conservation targets in species (i.e. lynx), processes (i.e. forest health and disease), and ecosystems (i.e. aquatic systems or shrub-steppe) should be established.

Questions for partner forums:

Can each partner forum link the conservation goals and management plans for natural fire regime within their landscape? Where are shortcomings in those plans that require further planning?

Can each partner forum link natural fire regimes to specific conservation targets present on their landscape, and define shared metrics?

What are the policy and social challenges associated with managing for natural fire regimes on the landscape of your partner forum, and are their any existing bodies working to address those as possible (i.e. existing Prescribed Fire Councils)?

APPENDIX D: Landscape Integrity Background

Noss (1990) developed the foundation for defining landscape integrity by defining three characteristics of biodiversity—composition, structure, and function—at four levels of ecological organization: landscape, ecosystem, species, and genetic. Building on this framework, Parrish et al. (2003) defined ecological integrity of a landscape. High integrity refers to a system with natural evolutionary and ecological processes, resilience to disturbance, and minimal or no influence from human activities (Angemeier and Karr 1994; Parrish et al. 2003). Species-specific approaches typically develop ecological indicators that attempt to measure attributes of a species or community, such as population size or species diversity. A complementary, and more general, approach is to develop indicators of the absence of human modification of habitat and alteration of ecological processes. An ecological indicator is a measurable attribute that provides insights into the state of the environment and provides information beyond its own measurement (Noon 2003). Indicators are usually surrogates for properties or system responses that are too difficult or costly to measure directly (Leibowitz et al. 1999).

WHY THESE INDICATORS WERE SELECTED:

Stressors

51

Land Use/Human Modification: Spatially explicit datasets measure intensity and footprint of threats classified by Salafsky et al (2008) including: urban areas, residential density, cropland, tree plantations, oil and gas wells, mining, wind turbines, road and road traffic effects (road type, traffic volume, distance to road), utility powerlines, cell towers, road effects, and terrestrial invasive species (Theobald 2013). Data layers can be calculated at different scales (GNLCC, Regional Forum, and Ecosystem), are in large part derived from publicly available databases, and can be scrutinized, quality-checked, edge matched and updated at regular time intervals using LC MAP and interoperable data management and analysis tools.

Collectively, these data quantify landscape integrity using a human modification metric (Theobald 2013). This human modification metric provides a good baseline, especially for impacts from land use and invasive species, for the GNLCC because it is (1) quantitative; (2) replicable over time (so we can determine trends); (3) scalable (it could be calculated at different resolutions for areas of interest within the GNLCC that differ in spatial extent, such as the Columbia Basin, Crown of the Continent, or the entire GNLCC); (4) standardized (in that it follows Salafsky et al's (2008) conservation threat classification; (5) combines terrestrial and aquatic integrity; and (6) calculated using available datasets that are regularly updated. If we want to mention caveats … In contrast, the human-modification/landscape-integrity index does not take into account any patch dynamics (i.e., identity, distribution, richness, or proportion of habitat-patch types), fragmentation, perimeter-area ratio, grazing, fire, or contemporary climate change, each of which can be important for numerous ecosystem components and processes.

Climate Change

Climate change is an important stressor and pervades scales from the site to the continent. To date and in future projections, magnitude of temperature change throughout the year is highest in northern latitudes of the USA and North America. In response GNLCC and many partners, notably the Climate Science Centers, have funded several projects to project the impacts of climate change on taxa (e.g., greater sage-grouse, native trout, whitebark pine), ecosystems and habitats (e.g., greater sage-grouse habitat; aquatic systems), and ecological processes (e.g. wildland fire; outbreaks of mountain pine beetle in whitebark pine stands). Climate change projections are conducted by project area and for each conservation target.

Conservation Targets

Ecosystem Processes: Selected in specific ecosystems because (a) they were identified as priority conservation targets in the GNLCC Strategic Plan; (b) they have been identified important to monitor by a partner organization; (c) they are the subject of a GNLCC-sponsored science project that will identify their status and condition.

Habitats and Ecosystems: Selected in specific ecosystems because (a) they were selected as conservation targets in the GNLCC Strategic Plan; (b) they have been identified by partner organizations as important enough to (1) establish a conservation objective or (2) monitor to gauge whether conservation objectives have been established.

Focal Species

Selected in specific ecosystems for the reasons indicated in the Habitats and Ecosystems sections. In addition, the species are considered Tier 1 Species (umbrella species) [grizzly bear, sage grouse, wolverine]; Tier 2 Species (indicator species) [Cutthroat trout, Sockeye Salmon]; and Tier 3 Species (iconic or socially important) [mule deer, bull trout]. Finally, many GNLCC partners have suggested focal species, as follows:

52

Brock (2013) used a surrogate species approach to select conservation targets for portions of the Rocky Mountain Forum. Sanderson et al. (2002) refined criteria for selecting surrogate species, using a stepwise process based on the requirements of “landscape species,” including five criteria: area requirement, heterogeneity of habitat, vulnerability to environmental stressors, ecological function, and social and economic importance. Brock applied this approach to the Madison Valley, in western Montana, where he examined 410 native vertebrate species and refined that to a candidate pool of 63 species. Using this approach, Brock and his team selected grizzly bear, elk, western toad, bighorn sheep, northern goshawk, greater sage-grouse, pronghorn, westslope cutthroat trout, American beaver, and black-backed woodpecker as surrogate or landscape species. Grizzly bear, sage grouse, and westslope CT are GNLCC conservation targets.

The Washington Connected Landscapes Project, including Washington State and portions of Oregon and British Columbia, chose focal species that may serve as an “umbrella” to encompass the diverse habitat needs of a a broader array of species of conservation concern (WA Connected Chapter 2), choosing focal species that would efficiently represnt the connectivity needs of wildlife species for which coarse-scale planning is relevant and species that are sensitive to landscape features such a as transportation infrastructure and urban development (WHCWG 2010). The team selected 11 focal species for the Columbia Plateau ecoregion, including sharp tail grouse, greater sage grouse, black tailed jackrabbit, white-tailed jackrabbit, Townsend’s ground squirrel, Washington ground squirrel, least chipmunk, mule deer, western rattlesnake, beaver, and tiger salamander (WHCWG 2012). Of these, greater sage-grouse and mule deer are GNLCC conservation targets.

The Crown Managers’ Partnership, covering the Crown of the Continent in portions of Montana, British Columbia, and Alberta, has adopted a Strategic Plan that strives for and ecologically healthy Crown achieved by management actions of multiple agencies each exercising their own jurisdiction with common goals in mind. The Managing for Ecological Health Project identifies six broad indicators to describe ecological health in the Crown: landscapes, water quantity and quality, biodiversity, invasive species, air quality, and climate. CMP partners are developing coordinated cross-jurisdictional management outcomes for a suite of transboundary focal species using occupancy and abundance models for grizzly bear, wolverine, cutthroat trout, and bull trout, all of which are GNLCC Conservation Targets.

Formed by practitioners in the Cascade mountains of Washington and British Columbia during the summer of 2012, the Cascadia Partner Forum fosters a network of natural resource practitioners working with the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to build the adaptive capacity of the landscape and species living within it. The forum hosted a series of workshops (2012-2013) to hear from a diverse array of partners on the ground in this transboundary landscape, and has hired three fellows to organize and synthesize information to guide Pilot Council discussions. Four priority issues within Cascadia have been identified by the Pilot Council to focus on in 2013: 1) Habitat connectivity, 2) Water, 3) Iconic Species: Wolverine and Sockeye salmon, and 4) Access Management. The partner forum’s fellows are preparing a report that provides a synthesis of existing information on these priority issues, discusses case studies within the Cascadia region on each topic, highlights success stories in Cascadia, and identifies funding needs for further information and climate adaptation actions.

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative is a long-term, science-based program to assess and enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitats at the landscape scale in southern Wyoming, while facilitating responsible development through local collaboration and partnerships. The WLCI works to ensure that wildlife and habitat remain viable across the landscape, even with significant development pressure. The priority objectives addressed within the focus communities are: fragmented habitats, invasive species, and water quality and quantity. Greater sage grouse has been a focal species of the WLCI since xx% of sage grouse habitat in the US occurs in Wyoming.

53

Based on these efforts, candidate surrogate species that could serve as landscape integrity metrics could include grizzly bear, greater sage grouse, cutthroat trout, mule deer, wolverine, Sockeye Salmon, and bull trout. Assumption: we are not going to measure any of these species across the whole GNLCC landscape or across the whole range of the species. For example, we will likely monitor grizzly bears in the GYA and/or Crown relying on existing efforts.

54